People v. Lazard

• Decision Date: 22 July 2020
• Docket Number: S.C.I. No. 18-00375,2019–05493
• Citation: 125 N.Y.S.3d 887 (Mem),185 A.D.3d 964
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Valery LAZARD, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

185 A.D.3d 964

125 N.Y.S.3d 887 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Valery LAZARD, appellant.

2019–05493

S.C.I. No. 18-00375

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted - May 15, 2020

July 22, 2020

Ellen O'Hara Woods, New City, NY, for appellant.

Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

On October 22, 2018, the defendant entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which he pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. In February 2019, the defendant moved to withdraw his plea of guilty. In an order dated March 7, 2019, the County Court denied the defendant's motion without a hearing. On March 27, 2019, the court sentenced the defendant in accordance with the plea agreement to a five-year period of probation.

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court, and generally the court's determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 485, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802 ; People v. Jackson, 170 A.D.3d 1040, 96 N.Y.S.3d 330 ; People v. Boria, 157 A.D.3d 811, 69 N.Y.S.3d 3 ). Generally, a plea of guilty may not be withdrawn absent some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in its inducement (see People v. Penaranda, 178 A.D.3d 858, 111 N.Y.S.3d 553 ; People v. Blount, 176 A.D.3d 1092, 1094, 112 N.Y.S.3d 155 ). When a defendant moves to withdraw a plea of guilty, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rests largely in the discretion of the court, and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances (see People v. Mitchell, 21 N.Y.3d 964, 966, 970 N.Y.S.2d 919, 993 N.E.2d 405 ; People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ; People v. Jackson, 170 A.D.3d at 1040, 96 N.Y.S.3d 330 ).

Here, the record reflects that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ). The evidence submitted in support of the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty was insufficient, standing alone, to justify withdrawal of the plea (see People v. Caruso, 88 A.D.3d 809, 810, 930 N.Y.S.2d 668 ; People v. Douglas, 83 A.D.3d 1092, 1093, 921 N.Y.S.2d 324 ; People v. Mortensen, 60 A.D.3d 971, 972, 874...